IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT NEWS—Educational authors ask for relief over Anthropic settlement claims allocations, (Nov 2, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

A deadline looms for the filing of responses over claims allocation disputes.

The complexity and opacity of the Anthropic claims settlement process is causing at least one group of authors “to consider abandoning, or to abandon, their claims all together,” a prominent authors association has asserted in a letter to the court administering the settlement. The letter, sent last week by a trade group for authors of educational textbooks, urges the court to “minimally” ensure that authors are not defaulted “as a consequence of technical non-compliance with procedure.”

The dispute involves the resolution of disagreements between authors and publishers over the allocation of settlement proceeds. According to the last status report filed by class counsel, each book for which a valid claim was submitted is allocated roughly $2,200 from the existing settlement fund. Where both publisher and author have an interest in the work, that payment must then be divided between them. For most works covered by the settlement, the default distribution is 50-50. For educational works, however, there is no default split, which means that publishers and authors have been left to work out the splits on their own—or if that fails, to seek resolution before a special master. The deadline for claimants to submit their responses to proposed allocations of settlement proceeds, including any objections to the percentages claimed by other rightsholders, is expiring this week.

That peculiar aspect of the settlement, educational authors contend, has caused a considerable challenge to educational authors. In a letter to the court last week, written by the Textbook and Academic Authors Association, the trade group asserts that some educational authors “have been outraged to learn of the percentage allocations being claimed by their publishers, which in many cases range from 85% to 95% of the settlement proceeds for the work.” What’s more, the trade group asserts, educational authors have been left unsure how to proceed once informed of allocation disputes because they do not know how to contact their publishers, do not still have their contracts with those publishers, and “have no idea how to develop arguments to advocate for a split, even if they do have copies of their contracts.”

The challenge for educational authors has been heightened, the trade group asserts, by the guidance they have received from the settlement administrator in the case. In early September, the trade group claims, that administrator sent out an email advising claimants of disputes over the allocation of splits. However, the trade group contends, many authors did not receive the first email notice sent out, and that first email advised authors of a 30-day response period, although the period was subsequently extended to 60 days. Moreover, the trade group asserts, the settlement process has also been “riddled with technical problems in the claims portal” and “it is still unclear what, specifically, a class member must do to get their claim resolved” by the special master assigned to adjudicate claims disputes.

The trade group appeals to the court “to ensure minimally that authors (i) are not defaulted as a consequence of technical non-compliance with a procedure that has been designed and re-designed, and has yet to be designed; and (ii) are provided clear notice for how they can direct their already-submitted claim to be resolved by the Special Master, and what that process will entail.”

As of the time this article was filed today, the docket did not show any response from the parties to the settlement or the court.

MainStory: TopStory Copyright TechnologyInternet AINews GCNNews